I may not have voted, but that doesn’t detract in the least from my enthusiasm over this.

Here’s a few gems from Stanley Hauerwas’ interview on his new book, “Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence.
I have argued that Christians’ first political responsibility is to be the church, and by being the church they should understand that their first political loyalty is to God, and the God we worship as Christians, in a manner that understands that we are not first and foremost about making democracy work, but about the truthful worship of the true God.
This is a deep misunderstanding about how Christianity works. Of course we believe that God is God and we are not and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit but that this is not a set of propositions — but is rather embedded in a community of practices that make those beliefs themselves work and give us a community by which we are shaped. Religious belief is not just some kind of primitive metaphysics, but in fact it is a performance just like you’d perform Lear. What people think Christianity is, is that it’s like the text of Lear, rather than the actual production of Lear. It has to be performed for you to understand what Lear is — a drama. You can read it, but unfortunately Christians so often want to make Christianity a text rather than a performance.
HAUERWAS: The difficulty about becoming a public official in America is that the training necessary for being a politician makes you the kind of person that can’t distinguish a lie from the truth anymore.
HOMILETICS: So politicians should not go to law school, they should go through seminary.
HAUERWAS: That would be a really good idea — a way of formation. But then, you see, one of the things that bothers me deeply about the situation we’re in is how seldom preachers tell their congregations the truth! That’s where you’ve got to start in a genuine politics.
Explanations are attempts to domesticate the wildness of God’s Spirit in a cause-and-effect model. You can’t explain God. If you think an explanation is possible, then you think that there’s some principle that is more determinative than God to explain God. One way to put it: People say, “Well how do I know that Jesus was raised from the dead?” I say, “If you need a theory of truth to explain that Jesus was raised from the dead, worship that theory, don’t worship Jesus!”
Read the whole thing here and be sure to check out the book as well.
The Short Answer:
It’s a biblical/theological decision that has to do with conscience (1 Cor. 10:31-33) and not the candidates themselves

The longer, but hopefully more interesting answer:
As I did 4 years ago, I have toiled and prayed over this decision for months and have not come to it lightly. But, for the life of me, when I try to envision Jesus living here and now, I just can’t see him walking into an election booth. Others have no problem with this vision, many of them even have no problem stating for sure just which box he’d tick, but the Jesus I encounter in the gospels refused to capitulate to the political parties of his day and in trying to follow him, I am simply more interested in charting a different course altogether and inviting others along.
Tim Kumfer, in his brilliant article, “Between Sojourners and the Simple Way? Rethinking Radical Evangelical Politics in ‘08 with John Howard Yoder” says,
A majority of the church in the United States still assumes that voting is one of the most meaningful ways Christians can engage themselves politically. This assumption is Constantinian; it assumes that politics for Christians is primarily about ensuring that society is headed our way…the problem occurs when we are more concerned with managing this realm than witnessing to a different one.
This mentality was perfectly embodied just the other day as I listened to a gentleman speak to a large crowd, encouraging them to vote for whichever candidate they thought would most ensure freedom of religious rights for Christians. I find this sort of thinking to be positively debilitating to the character of the Church. To think for a moment that the Church would believe that its ability to function had anything whatsoever to do with government protected rights is just the sort of posture that led to the utter decimation of the people of God in the First Testament. A Church which looks to the government to protect its rights is in grave danger.
This really worries me. Not only because I live in a place where the reality of this assumption is thicker than I have ever experienced, but because I am not above falling prey to it.
As I understand the Bible, I would say that all those who follow Jesus are given freedom to vote if they choose, but nowhere do I sense that this is an obligation. There are typically two common biblical objections to this which I will try to respond to briefly.
The first is Jesus’ command, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” (Mark 12:17) I actually think (ala NT Wright) that in classic Jesus fashion, this is an underhanded way of saying, “Caesar actually doesn’t have a right to anything since everything is God’s. So, if you want to pay taxes (or vote or otherwise participate in government), go right ahead, just don’t forget who you are ultimately accountable to.”
Others would quote Romans 13:1, “The authorities that exist have been established by God.” But I am reminded that secular governments, even democratic ones, are a result of people rejecting God (1 Sam. 8:7). Not rebelling against them is one thing – we made our bed and therefore must lie in it, but assuming they have a claim on our allegiance and participation is quite another.
Not voting is a way to remind myself (and hopefully others) of these things – that it is the church and the church alone which witnesses to a new world order – which is called to put on display in the here and now what God dreams for the new creation.
A few influences. Shane Claiborne wrote a good article entitled, “Advise Everyone… Endorse No One” that helped me to think about these issues.
As one with Anabaptist leanings, I was influenced, first in 2005, and again this year, by this article from John D. Roth, “Polls Apart.”
The words of Stanley Hauerwas in this article/audio were helpful.
As were David Fitch’s musings on, “Not Voting as an Act of Christian Discernment: Calling the Emerging Church Into a Different Kind of Faithfulness.”
Liked Mark Van Steenwyk’s thoughts here.
Finally, once again Derek Webb has come through on the bonus track of the re-release of Mockingbird (which you can get for free here), with “How Then Shall We Then Vote?”
It may very well be that my decision on this matter comes from having a weaker conscience than some others, but as it indeed is my conscience here I stand and can do no other.

I have been positively stressing over how to construct my thoughts on the very different ways in which McCain and Obama addressed Rick Warren’s question on evil. If you don’t know what I am talking about, check here.
Rather than attempting any sort of biblical/theological argument or position, I will simply speak plainly and try to articulate the way I felt as I listened to the 2 responses. Perhaps the biblical/theological defense will come later if necessary.
Obama answered first and I thought, “Wow, I am not sure I am even imagine someone giving a better answer.” He spoke to the diversity of ways in which we see evil in the world, he offered an answer that wasn’t on Warren’s contrived list (confrontation), acknowledged that final task of erasing evil from the world was God’s task, and emphasized the need to approach confronting evil from a posture of humility.
McCain answered later with one simple phrase, “Defeat it.” My gut response to this was, “Are you kidding me? How incredibly arrogant, presumptuous, and narrow-minded.” In typical “We’re the United States and therefore what we say goes” sort of fashion, McCain didn’t even feel the need to qualify his answer.
To be clear, I am saying that I think Obama gave the better, and not necessarily Christian, or right answer. What really frightens/saddens me is that so may who profess to follow Jesus think that McCain did. I am not seeking to comment here on the whole range of political stances that each candidate takes, but let me be honest, how these candidates answered this question instantly became a big deal to me and I have no reservation in saying that if this was all it came down to (and surely it’s not), I am much, much more comfortable as a citizen of the United States following a Commander-in-Chief who both acknowledges the limitations and pervue of the government and is willing to approach issues with humility.
Rick Warren and Saddleback Church hosted a forum where John McCain and Barack Obama answered a series of questions posed by Rick. One of the questions was,
“Does evil exist, and if so, should it be ignored, negotiated with, contained, or defeated?”
The clip is below, but in short Barack’s response was,
“Evil does exist, and it must be confronted, but with humility as the eradication of evil is ultimately God’s task.”
McCain was more straightforward,
“Defeat it.”
Just wondered if anyone wanted to comment on this before I try (maybe) to say something about it. The entire transcript for the forum is here. And you can view the forum in 4 parts here.
And this, my friends, is why I get really, really scared about the American media…
Thanks Nick for pointing it out.